Syrian Refugees in the USA

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

So are your concerns that the refugees might really be dangerous terrorists? If so, then what additional vetting measures do you want us to take? We already have a grueling and draconian system for vetting immigrants and refugees.

[CharlesPhipps]

The problem with the "local communities would provide cover for foreign agents" argument is that it is the exact same xenophobia which led to the horrific internment of the Japanese during WW2. It's also the same attitude which also is screwing us over in our ongoing efforts against extremists because the United States has been denying and breaking the compacts it has with translators and other assets in the Middle East as well as Afghanistan where we promise the resettlement of them as well as their families.

But yes, "Jewish cover for Nazi agents" is the stupidest thing ever. Especially since the Nazis did try to send over saboteurs and they masqueraded as native Americans.

As for moral obligations? Yes, it does guilt trip people because guilt is usually a reaction to doing something monstrous.

So are your concerns that the refugees might really be dangerous terrorists? If so, then what additional vetting measures do you want us to take? We already have a grueling and draconian system for vetting immigrants and refugees.

I don't think there's anything which persuades people who use this argument because the ultimate desire is simply not to have any more Muslims in the country.

[Darth Wedgius]

The problem with the "local communities would provide cover for foreign agents" argument is that it is the exact same xenophobia which led to the horrific internment of the Japanese during WW2. It's also the same attitude which also is screwing us over in our ongoing efforts against extremists because the United States has been denying and breaking the compacts it has with translators and other assets in the Middle East as well as Afghanistan where we promise the resettlement of them as well as their families.

But yes, "Jewish cover for Nazi agents" is the stupidest thing ever. Especially since the Nazis did try to send over saboteurs and they masqueraded as native Americans.

None of which actually disproves the argument. Providing an example where an enemy didn't do X does not lend any weight to the argument that an enemy can do X.

I don't think there's anything which persuades people who use this argument because the ultimate desire is simply not to have any more Muslims in the country.

Argumentum ad telepathicum?

[CharlesPhipps]

Just saying its a ridiculous argument.

"Terrorists will enter the country through the most convoluted manner that will subject them to extreme scrutiny." Versus...all the other ways terrorists have actually entered the country.

And I'm not trying to diss them. I just think it's a terrible argument and I apologize for speaking about their opinions.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Darth, we already GOT terrorists here. They post on Reddit and shoot up black churches. I think the people who are trying to flee imminent death are less likely to be terrorists.

The point is that Terrorism, based on risk-assessment levels, isn't much of a problem with refugees or immigration, and we don't show the same concerns about, say, Swedish immigrants coming to our nation.

If, during a hurricane in Florida, everyone in Georgia said "go back to where you came from! We don't want you here!", that would be a pretty dick move.

[excalibur]

Fleeing directly to a different state in the same country is not the same as taking countless people from an entirely different country of an entirely different culture that's been at war half way across the world into a place they are not familiar with with a government system and culture they don't want to be accustomed to with little to no money or home to speak of...and you tell me if there's a problem

[Darth Wedgius]

Just saying its a ridiculous argument.

"Terrorists will enter the country through the most convoluted manner that will subject them to extreme scrutiny." Versus...all the other ways terrorists have actually entered the country.

And I'm not trying to diss them. I just think it's a terrible argument and I apologize for speaking about their opinions.

You do realize the dangers of being reasonable on the Internet, right? I don't think the Internet has faced that kind of radical approach.

OK, fair enough. Terrorists will enter the country on way or another. Syrian refugees in large numbers might bring in more, but we do have a lot of home-grown people of all stripes (left, right) and I worry more about home-grown radicals than immigrants, anyway.

A few thousand refugees from areas not controlled by ISIS or Assad might be a nice maneuver. There are good people caught in a very nasty situation.

I'd rather see us out of Syria altogether. IMHO, we should let Assad know that if he uses chemical weapons inside his own borders, our response will be limited to a firmly-worded letter to the U.N. And I can think of worse things than to swallow our national pride and leave Russia fighting ISIS in the Middle East. I suspect Britain and France would follow our lead.

Maybe refugees could come from some of the families of those fighting both ISIS and Assad. Not the prize they wanted, but I think it may be better than they're likely to get at this point. And both ISIS and Assad might be happy to see them go. And if there are people actually fighting for democracy in a situation like that, and not just saying what we want to hear, well, I can think of worse people to bring to America.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Fleeing directly to a different state in the same country is not the same as taking countless people from an entirely different country of an entirely different culture that's been at war half way across the world into a place they are not familiar with with a government system and culture they don't want to be accustomed to with little to no money or home to speak of...and you tell me if there's a problem

If you were given the option of being moved to, say, Thailand, or the option of dying in the bombed-out hellscape that used to be your home, which would you choose? Keep in mind say that at this point most of the people you know and love are dead.

It is the same situation because they are fleeing death and disaster, and we are saying "You look kinda shady, so stay there and die."

[CharlesPhipps]

Assad is an interesting case of idealism backfiring horribly and exposing the nature of evil at the heart of dictatorships. Prior to the Arab Spring, Assad was generally considered to be a "good" example of a dictator who had a soft approach.

Then he was implicated in a murder of a fellow head of state and everything went to hell as we saw just how ruthlessly he'd hold onto power.

Re: The Refugee Crisis

I think it's important to remember the scale of the conflict as well. If you're thinking of the Syrian crisis as taking place in, say, Northeast United States then the conflict isn't in New York. It's also in Vermont, Main, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and down to Ohio. You want to leave the country because you don't know where the conflict is going to spill into next.

So you go to Europe, Turkey, or the United States (well not the USA because the ONLY people they take in is your children and maybe your wife/their mother--not you)

And to give you a sense of how many people have left Syria in this crisis. The population of Syria is 18 million right now and 5 million have left. 1/4 people have fled and that number becomes closer to half if you note the people who left their homes to other sections.

[excalibur]

Fleeing directly to a different state in the same country is not the same as taking countless people from an entirely different country of an entirely different culture that's been at war half way across the world into a place they are not familiar with with a government system and culture they don't want to be accustomed to with little to no money or home to speak of...and you tell me if there's a problem

If you were given the option of being moved to, say, Thailand, or the option of dying in the bombed-out hellscape that used to be your home, which would you choose? Keep in mind say that at this point most of the people you know and love are dead.

It is the same situation because they are fleeing death and disaster, and we are saying "You look kinda shady, so stay there and die."

Now you're equality America to Thailand in terms of distance but not in terms of logistics. Thailand seems like a random country to flee to. It would make a little bit more sense if you had said China, but it still wouldn't make much more sense when really if America is fucked, where else in the world would you find a place like the United States? The fact that people don't like our way of life but want to sneak in here tells you something or despite hating America so much, but they don't want to leave when their bluff is called.

The problem is that America has a very large population and much more diverse than anywhere else in the world. How we problem solve with both natural disasters and civil unrest is we usually take care of ourselves. Hurricanes haven't ever displaced major populations in America, so don't try to compare what we would be like as "refugees". The vast majority of people living in a certain place would rather stay. If you want to run, you go ahead. That's your mentality, which apparently is your assumption of me and others.

You can't just force a scenario on someone and expect them to have empathy to your cause. It's like saying you won't know unless you're rape so you shouldn't have an opinion on how to deal with it.

The idea that a situation that happens everywhere will basically deliver the exact same results and responses is not how the world works.